[Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

Mary Uduma mnuduma at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 14 22:12:49 UTC 2014


Dear All, 

I wish to thank all for the much progress made on the difficult topic and work of the ICG.

I have uploaded to the drop box Draft 12 building on what others have done  with a few comments and minor edits.  (See NIRA TECH comments).


The most difficult part for me is the voting aspect as majority will always prevail in any poll. Small but significant minority may be ignored or overruled with voting. 

Any voting in the section dealing with Recommendation may negate our work and will not produce the desired and acceptable proposal to NTIA, again the expectation of  a broad consensus of the communities will be wanting in the final report. 

It would be helpful if the paragraph 4(c)(iv) is rephrased or deleted.  I did not provide any language though, but will be willing to do so on the 17th if need be,  or any other member can help out here and suggest a language to replace it.
What we need is TRUST+COMPROMISES which will result into CONSENSUS. .

BR
Mary Uduma



























On Saturday, September 13, 2014 5:41 PM, Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
 


I look forward to your considered reply.

Best

Joe

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 13, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:


Joe thanks for the time ,efforts and thoughts
>Aloow me to thniik over and come back to you .Perhaps the combination of both by adding your last to your previous suggestion with" in other words" could be a solution.
>Kavouss  
>
>
>2014-09-13 14:39 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>:
>
>Kavous:
>>
>>I think it depends on the nature of the concern, that's why t needs
    to be on a case by case basis.  For example, ICC-Basis as a whole
    may have wanted more testing of the proposal, but that may not be
    the basis for saying it is not a proposal that should be
    considered.  I think the operational communities, because of their
    role, and if the nature of the objection is operational, have a
    different nature of objection...
>>
>>Perhaps a better phrasing might be:
>>
>>All stakeholder communities have a role in the development of the
    broad consensus called for; the nature, scope and breadth of support
    of concerns/objections within and across stakeholder communities
    will impact the ability of the ICG to submit a proposal that meets
    the requirements of the NTIA process. Concerns of an operational
    nature form one or more operational community would also
    significantly limit the ability of ICG to submit a proposal that
    meets the terms of the  NTIA requirements.
>>
>>This would replace the last sentence.
>>
>>Its certainly not exact, but as we have found, precise terms have
    been beyond our reach because of the need to properly apply these
    principles in context...
>>
>>Happy to see if anyone has better words than mine...
>>
>>Joe 
>>
>>
>>   
>>
>>On 9/13/2014 7:24 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>>
>>Joe, 
>>>
>>>Thank you very much for your attempt to narrow down the exting divergence.
>>>In the last sentence of  added bullet 
>>>Quote
>>>While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of an operational community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. "
>>>Unquote
>>>Please kindly clarify the  situation in theexample given by Martin  in which IF all 5 GAC members or ALAC +ICC-BASIS object to a case Under consideration 
>>>a) Does that objection significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. " 
>>>b) To which of the 3 operational Communities ( names, numbers and protocol parameter )  GAC or ALAC +ICC-BASIS could be associated .
>>>In general ,your added text further clarify the matter .I am comfortable that you have maintained the concept of case by case .
>>>Awating your kind clarification 
>>>Kavouss 
>>>
>>>
>>>2014-09-13 12:32 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>:
>>>
>>>Colleagues:
>>>>
>>>>In an attempt to find a middle ground, I have attempted to
              address a number of the issues through small edits.  for
              small minority, I have tried blending a number of the
              concepts into a new paragraph. 
>>>>·         Determinations of consensus do not fit into a formula and the concept of what is a small minority will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis.  Factors of determination may include the nature and seriousness of the objection, the scope of support for the objection – whole stakeholder community(ies) or a subset of a or a number of communiites and the attemps that have been made to resolve those concerns/objections.  While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of an operational community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>Other issues include a clarification of subject matter
              decisions (we do make decisions as to sufficiency of
              subject matter to meet NTIA requirement or the lack of
              consensus on an issue, that is beyond assembling, what we
              don't do is redraft the proposal),  as well as Martin's
              question related to why polling...
>>>>
>>>>Hope these help.
>>>>
>>>>Joe 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On 9/12/2014 8:15 AM, Martin Boyle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Thank you Kavouss.  As requested, I have made specific drafting suggestions on the latest draft in drop box (although there was also a suggestion from Joe in a separate drafting thread where I have a slightly different line from him).  I have left the comments in place as I think it is important that colleagues understand why I have concerns.
>>>>> 
>>>>>I have not tried to change the filename:  as Alissa pointed out in her mail, this should wait for a new clean draft to avoid causing confusion.
>>>>> 
>>>>>Cheers
>>>>> 
>>>>>Martin
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>From:Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] 
>>>>>Sent: 11 September 2014 21:34
>>>>>To: Martin Boyle
>>>>>Cc: Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group
>>>>>Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
>>>>> 
>>>>>Martin
>>>>>I agree with most of the things that you said.
>>>>>However, it might be useful that you suggest a revision marked text and move all of your comments to the covering.
>>>>>It seems that at least I have sympathy for many of your thoughts but prefer to see your text possibly not coming back to square one. No one believes that anyone else should be excluded. A team work means everybody should be given the opportunity to comment.
>>>>>What bothers me is that some people want to restrict the process to only three operational communities .While we agree that their interest should be met but we want to give opportunity to others 
>>>>>I am happy that you also agree to maintain the case by case approach.
>>>>>Waiting your editorial and other sort of amendment in a revision mark approach not introducing square bracket and comments in the margin
>>>>>SUGGEST CONCRETE AMENDMENTS and give the name to the file as you wish
>>>>>However, I wish to reiterate that I would have serious difficulties if one focus on a particular case or particular community or the language and approach used by a particular community
>>>>>We need to be general and cover every body's case 
>>>>>Regards
>>>>>Kavouss 
>>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>Internal-cg at icann.org
>>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140914/0eea9480/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list